Lukáš Pekárek
LightNews LightNews
banner
pekarekl.bsky.social
Lukáš Pekárek
@pekarekl.bsky.social
560 followers 1.2K following 38 posts
Harnessing physics to understand life.
Pulling one RNA molecule at a time.
RNA, Biophysics, and Proteins sometimes.
Lame puns intended.
Currently sciencing at @tudresden.bsky.social
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
dacolon.bsky.social
When I was growing up, many songs played over the airwaves in Puerto Rico were in English. I did not understand most of the words. I have to be frank, for many I still don’t. But, I enjoyed them and don’t remember complaining about it. I think that is the case for most of the World.
February 8, 2026 at 5:17 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
aemonten.bsky.social
AI writes papers, AI reviews, AI replies to decision letter, AI makes decision, AI reads papers, AI writes papers...
February 9, 2026 at 5:53 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
ashevenell.bsky.social
Trust me, the woman of academia are not at all surprised by the number of academic men orbiting Epstein.
February 7, 2026 at 1:19 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
marykmac.bsky.social
yeah, just out of interest, how many people choose the pen on the right for real work or art? See a lot of them in professional workplaces, do you?
Picture of two pens. The first is an ordinary ballpoint pen, with the caption “how work feels doing it alone”. The second is a picture of one of those novelty pens with ten colours that you had when you were thirteen, with the caption, “how work feels worh an AI employee”. At their bottom it says “hire an AI employee for $0.97/day”.
November 25, 2025 at 8:40 AM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
joncooper-us.bsky.social
👇👇
January 18, 2026 at 4:03 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
chillzaa.bsky.social
🚨Last chance to apply for two PhD projects in my lab, applying structural biology and single molecule biophysics to investigate gene expression in RNA viruses: www.findaphd.com/phds/?Keywor...
www.findaphd.com
January 6, 2026 at 3:56 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
juliet-turner.bsky.social
POV: you are a young woman celebrating a recent academic success
November 17, 2025 at 7:20 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
chillzaa.bsky.social
🚨Attention prospective PhD students🚨
Are you interested in molecular mechanisms, RNA viruses, structural biology or biophysics? 🧬🦠🧪

We have THREE fully-funded PhD projects available for October 2026 entry:
www.findaphd.com/phds/?Keywor...

Please share/repost, and get in touch if you're interested
chris hill PhD Projects, Programmes & Scholarships - 3 PhDs Listed
FindAPhD. Search Funded PhD Projects, Programmes & Scholarships in chris hill. Search for PhD funding, scholarships & studentships in the UK, Europe and around the world.
www.findaphd.com
November 13, 2025 at 7:54 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk 🎤

If you’ve read this far and still need convincing, please check out our preprint arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 and this infographic: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
10/10
The four-fold drain of scientific publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control.
November 13, 2025 at 8:17 PM
pekarekl.bsky.social
My first invitation to a predatory journal contribution <3
What an honour!
November 13, 2025 at 12:48 PM
pekarekl.bsky.social
So happy and proud that my great supervisor and mentor Marcus Jahnel is one of those 13 scientists! Congratulations! 🥳
tudresden.bsky.social TU Dresden @tudresden.bsky.social · Nov 12
Starkes Zeichen für die Qualität der Spitzenforschung: 13 TUD-Mitglieder sind unter den weltweit meistzitierten Forschenden. 🧑‍🔬 Damit zählt die #TUDresden erneut zu den am stärksten vertretenen Einrichtungen in 🇩🇪 bei den #HighlyCited2025 von @clarivateag.bsky.social.
ℹ️ tu-dresden.de/tu-dresden/n...
Foto von den Großbuchstaben "TUD" auf der Wiese hinter dem Hörsaalzentrum der TU Dresden im Herbst.
November 12, 2025 at 7:57 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
venpopov.bsky.social
The academic publishing system is so rotten, it must be completely dismantled. Not partially, and not improved. Dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up.

When I tell non-academic friends how it all works they stare at me in disbelief. Not only that it exists, but that we still allow it to.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · Nov 11
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
gabrielaughey.bsky.social
Always shocking to see these kinds of data collected together. "[publishers made]US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024" - That's $12 billion diverted away from actual research or materially supporting the community - these are disgusting numbers.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · Nov 11
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 1:20 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
disabilitystor1.bsky.social
Call me controversial, but technology that leads vulnerable people into crisis and even holds their hand as they die by suicide should not be endorsed by schools and universities, we should not be giving discounted subscriptions to this monstrous tech to young people AT ALL
fionakatauskas.bsky.social Fiona Katauskas @fionakatauskas.bsky.social · Nov 7
The boyfriend of a friend of my son's has spent several weeks in a psych ward due to Chat GPT induced psychosis. He isn't suicidal but AI encouraged him down a toxic and paranoid wormhole until he became completely delusional. Evil stuff.
disabilitystor1.bsky.social Aparna Nair @disabilitystor1.bsky.social · Nov 7
1.This is not the only known example we know of ChatGPT cheering on a vulnerable young person to die by suicide, this time it is a recent Texas A&M grad
2. Every single university that has invited OpenAI into our midst should be asked to account for their choices.
www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/u...
November 7, 2025 at 12:51 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
olivierduss.bsky.social
Excited to share my first PhD student’s @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social!

Tracking 5 dyes simultaneously Kavan Gor @embl.org tracks nascent #RNA folding during #ribosome assembly to correlate structural with functional information on single RNA molecules!

Check it out!

www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
November 1, 2025 at 5:56 AM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
vanessaloi.bsky.social
I´m hiring!
Please share 🪴 🧪 🌈
I´m hiring a lab technician! | Vanessa Loiacono
I´m hiring a lab technician! The position is at the beginning (from September 1) part-time but with possibility of full-time with negotiating salary as it can be additionally funded by a 12 mil CZK PR...
www.linkedin.com
July 18, 2025 at 12:28 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
zachhensel.bsky.social
🧵Remember the preprint claiming SARS-CoV-2 has a "synthetic fingerprint"?

It said a restriction map was "extremely unlikely to have arisen by random evolution.”

I took its claims seriously.

The "synthetic fingerprint" hypothesis collapses. My new preprint explains why.

arxiv.org/abs/2510.23833
22-Oct 2022 headline from The Economist A new paper claims SARS-CoV-2 bears signs of genetic engineering But it has yet to be peer reviewed. And others strongly disagree
October 29, 2025 at 7:32 AM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
astrokatie.com
Chatbots — LLMs — do not know facts and are not designed to be able to accurately answer factual questions. They are designed to find and mimic patterns of words, probabilistically. When they’re “right” it’s because correct things are often written down, so those patterns are frequent. That’s all.
June 19, 2025 at 11:21 AM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
redpenblackpen.bsky.social
What's in yer basement?
October 15, 2025 at 7:21 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
schlierflab.bsky.social
3 more days to apply for a PhD position within our training program on biomolecular condensates 👇👇. 12 positions within our a focus from physics and theory to experimental biophysics to biology and medicine/disease.
schlierflab.bsky.social Michael @schlierflab.bsky.social · Oct 7
Are you interested in Biomolecular Condensates and looking for a PhD training? Check out the 12 (!) open PhD positions (also 1 on smFRET & condensates 🙃) in Dresden @rtg3120.bsky.social @tudresden.bsky.social starting April 2026. Apply latest by 24 Oct 2025 here: dresdencondensates.org/join-us/
Join Us – RTG 3120 Biomolecular Condensates
dresdencondensates.org
October 21, 2025 at 10:20 AM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
kristalerista.bsky.social
Dear funding agencies,

I know we all want to discover the wonder drug that will cure the horrible diseases, but to do that, we need to invest in basic, unsexy, foundational research on how the systems work. Funding can’t all be drug development.

Sincerely,
Looking for basic research grants.
October 14, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
richardsever.bsky.social
AI in biology: "I read about some new computational method...get excited because it’s exactly what I need...I try the method...Most of the time things don’t work...I have seen this play out so many times my default assumption is nothing is going to work" blog.genesmindsmachines.com/p/we-still-c...
We still can’t predict much of anything in biology
Biology is hard. Yes, even for AI.
blog.genesmindsmachines.com
October 9, 2025 at 6:13 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
alexis-verger.cpesr.fr
AI-generated papers
AI-generated peer-review reports
AI-generated images
AI-grant writing
Algorithms to spot promising science

I'm very worried, we should all be very worried
October 3, 2025 at 12:46 PM
Reposted by Lukáš Pekárek
mehr.nz
here are some helpful steps for academics who are considering creating genAI images to use for lab branding:

1. don't
September 29, 2025 at 12:07 AM